db-derby-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Lance Andersen <Lance.Ander...@Sun.COM>
Subject Re: Question regarding DERBY-4208 Parameters ? with OFFSET and/or FETCH
Date Fri, 10 Jul 2009 13:28:59 GMT

On Jul 10, 2009, at 9:12 AM, Kathey Marsden wrote:

> Rick Hillegas wrote:
>> Other forms of parameterization are allowed by the standard. It is  
>> just that ? parameters are not explicitly included. The consensus  
>> of the committee members who discussed this was that this was an  
>> oversight, and no-one could explain why ? parameters had been  
>> omitted.
>> The ? parameters would be, technically, an extension to what's in  
>> the standard--an extension which is compatible with the standard  
>> and which clearly fits the standard's intent.
> Thanks  Rick for the clarification. My questions on this now are:
> 1) What would we do if for some reason this didn't make the  
> standard? Would we back it out and break existing applications or  
> remain forked from the standard?
> 2) What is the impact on users migrating to other database  
> products?  Often Derby is used as a development database and/or as  
> one of many database options.  How would we mitigate portability  
> concerns?

There are always going to be things that come up in migrations.   
Regardless of whether you are coming to/from Java DB to/from Oracle,  
MySQL, Postgresql, SQL Anywhere, ASE, Informix...

documentation is how you mitigate these types of things documenting  
which features of Derby are not part of the standard....
> 3) Does this create a slippery slope for violation of our standards  
> based charter?

I do not see how.  Every database vendor has their own extensions  
which are above and beyond standards....

> I think all three of these could be mitigated if we could get a  
> public commitment from the SQL committee that this *will*  be  
> included in the 2011 spec  or get a commitment from the JDBC  
> committee on the escape syntax that will be supported in JDBC 4.1  
> and implement that.  Is it  possible to get such a commitment?

When JDBC 4.1 completes the escape syntax will be there as we closed  
on this ages ago in the EG.  Regardless of the fact, it is Escape  
syntax to provide a standard way for JDBC apps to utilize the varying  
functionality in the ways different DBs provide support for this  
> Kathey

View raw message